netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/9] riscv, bpf: optimize calls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 27 Jan 2020 18:15:46 -0800 (PST)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
To:     Bjorn Topel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
CC:     daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/9] riscv, bpf: optimize calls

On Tue, 07 Jan 2020 02:14:17 PST (-0800), Bjorn Topel wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 19:58, Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 01:13:41 PST (-0800), Bjorn Topel wrote:
>> > Instead of using emit_imm() and emit_jalr() which can expand to six
>> > instructions, start using jal or auipc+jalr.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
>> > ---
>> >  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c | 101 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> >  1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> > index 46cff093f526..8d7e3343a08c 100644
>> > --- a/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> > +++ b/arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c
>> > @@ -811,11 +811,12 @@ static void emit_sext_32_rd(u8 *rd, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> >       *rd = RV_REG_T2;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > -static void emit_jump_and_link(u8 rd, int rvoff, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> > +static void emit_jump_and_link(u8 rd, s64 rvoff, bool force_jalr,
>> > +                            struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> >  {
>> >       s64 upper, lower;
>> >
>> > -     if (is_21b_int(rvoff)) {
>> > +     if (rvoff && is_21b_int(rvoff) && !force_jalr) {
>> >               emit(rv_jal(rd, rvoff >> 1), ctx);
>> >               return;
>> >       }
>> > @@ -832,6 +833,28 @@ static bool is_signed_bpf_cond(u8 cond)
>> >               cond == BPF_JSGE || cond == BPF_JSLE;
>> >  }
>> >
>> > +static int emit_call(bool fixed, u64 addr, struct rv_jit_context *ctx)
>> > +{
>> > +     s64 off = 0;
>> > +     u64 ip;
>> > +     u8 rd;
>> > +
>> > +     if (addr && ctx->insns) {
>> > +             ip = (u64)(long)(ctx->insns + ctx->ninsns);
>> > +             off = addr - ip;
>> > +             if (!is_32b_int(off)) {
>> > +                     pr_err("bpf-jit: target call addr %pK is out of range\n",
>> > +                            (void *)addr);
>> > +                     return -ERANGE;
>> > +             }
>> > +     }
>> > +
>> > +     emit_jump_and_link(RV_REG_RA, off, !fixed, ctx);
>> > +     rd = bpf_to_rv_reg(BPF_REG_0, ctx);
>> > +     emit(rv_addi(rd, RV_REG_A0, 0), ctx);
>>
>> Why are they out of order?  It seems like it'd be better to just have the BPF
>> calling convention match the RISC-V calling convention, as that'd avoid
>> juggling the registers around.
>>
>
> BPF passes arguments in R1, R2, ..., and return value in R0. Given
> that a0 plays the role of R1 and R0, how can we avoid the register
> juggling (without complicating the JIT too much)? It would be nice
> though... and ARM64 has the same concern AFAIK.

Oh, why did you say that?  This kind of stuff is why I'm twenty days behind on
email...

https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200128021145.36774-1-palmerdabbelt@google.com/T/#t

:)

> [...]
>> > @@ -1599,36 +1611,51 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_int_jit_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
>> >       for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) {
>> >               pass++;
>> >               ctx->ninsns = 0;
>> > -             if (build_body(ctx, extra_pass)) {
>> > +             if (build_body(ctx, extra_pass, ctx->offset)) {
>> >                       prog = orig_prog;
>> >                       goto out_offset;
>> >               }
>> >               build_prologue(ctx);
>> >               ctx->epilogue_offset = ctx->ninsns;
>> >               build_epilogue(ctx);
>> > -             if (ctx->ninsns == prev_ninsns)
>> > -                     break;
>> > +
>> > +             if (ctx->ninsns == prev_ninsns) {
>> > +                     if (jit_data->header)
>> > +                             break;
>> > +
>> > +                     image_size = sizeof(u32) * ctx->ninsns;
>> > +                     jit_data->header =
>> > +                             bpf_jit_binary_alloc(image_size,
>> > +                                                  &jit_data->image,
>> > +                                                  sizeof(u32),
>> > +                                                  bpf_fill_ill_insns);
>> > +                     if (!jit_data->header) {
>> > +                             prog = orig_prog;
>> > +                             goto out_offset;
>> > +                     }
>> > +
>> > +                     ctx->insns = (u32 *)jit_data->image;
>> > +                     /* Now, when the image is allocated, the image
>> > +                      * can potentially shrink more (auipc/jalr ->
>> > +                      * jal).
>> > +                      */
>> > +             }
>>
>> It seems like these fragments should go along with patch #2 that introduces the
>> code, as I don't see anything above that makes this necessary here.
>>
>
> No, you're right.
>
>
> Björn